Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Adejare was duly elected as Chair of the meeting.

Councillor Gordon was duly elected as Vice-Chair of the meeting.

2.1 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Joseph, Rathbone, Conway and Ogundemuren.  Apologies for absence were also received from co-opted Members Salmah Kansara and Michael Lobenstein.

2.2 Councillors Sizer, Suso-Runge and Selman were in virtual attendance.

3.1 There were no urgent items, and the order of business was as set out as in the agenda.

4.1 The following declarations were received:

-  Co-opted Member Jo Macleod, Councillor Fajana-Thomas, Councillor Sadek and Councillor Ross declared that they were school governors.

-  Councillor Pallis declared that he was a former school governor.

-  Councillor Lee Laudat-Scott declared that he was a school governor and member of the Schools Forum.

To set out the aims and objectives of scrutiny involvement.

-  Cllr Soraya Adejare (Chair, Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission)

-  Cllr Margaret Gordon (Vice Chair, Children & Young People Scrutiny Commission)

(5 mins)

5.1 The Chair commenced by explaining that the jointly convened meeting had been called to review the strategic response of statutory partners to the recommendations from the safeguarding practice review by the City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership (CHSCP). The meeting was undertaking statutory functions in relation to accountability of crime and disorder and oversight of education and child safeguarding arrangements.

5.2 The Chair outlined the reasons for the meeting which were to ensure:

-  There was a strategic and coordinated response by the statutory bodies to the recommendations and actions arising from the safeguarding practice review report.

-  There were effective accountability and monitoring structures in place to oversee progress against the recommendations and the various agreed action plans

-  That there were plans to engage, involve and reassure the community in relation to the progress of the recommendations and that there is public accountability in the process.

5.3 The Chair explained that an amended paper had been received by the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC) and had been distributed to all attendees. The amended paper is attached as an appendix to these minutes.

5.4 Commission Members would reflect after the meeting on the evidence heard and make recommendations for improvement to the organisations for consideration.

5.5 The Chair went on to highlight some of the work that the Living in Hackney and Children and Young People Scrutiny Commissions had undertaken which aligned with the outcomes and recommendations of the Child Q Serious Case Review.  The Chair also highlighted some of the work that the Cabinet had undertaken in regard to anti-racism, from over policing of global majority residents through to the over sanctioning of black children and disparities in school exclusions.  She explained that the meeting would seek to help local safeguarding agencies to develop safeguarding practice to a point where residents would trust safeguarding agencies to ensure that what happened to Child Q never happened again.

To set out the timeline of events in relation to Child Q, and highlight the key conclusions and recommendations of the serious case review (SCR).

-  Jim Gamble, Independent Chair of City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership

-  Rory McCallum, Senior Professional Advisor, Safeguarding and Learning

(25 min; 10 min presentation, 15 min Q & A)

6.1 The Chair invited Councillor Gordon to open the item.

6.2 Councillor Gordon explained that the Child Q incident had put a spotlight on Hackney’s schools and policing and it was therefore vital that there be robust, independent scrutiny as well as transparent accountability for the response by the relevant authorities.

6.3 Many members of the community did not see Child Q’s experience as isolated, and pointed to the Living in Hackney and Children and Young People Scrutiny Commissions’  work and recommendations on the topic particularly with regard to exclusions, safeguarding, anti-racism and inclusion & behaviour management that was summarised in the agenda pack. The discussion would cover the timeline of events relating to Child Q and the key conclusions and recommendations following the serious case review (SCR).

6.4 Attending for this item was:

- Jim Gamble, Independent Chair - City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership

- Rory McCallum, Senior Professional Adviser, Safeguarding & Learning - London Borough of Hackney

6.5 The Chair invited the Independent Chair of the City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership (CHSCP) to give a short verbal presentation to compliment the reports received and included in the agenda pack. The main points from the presentation are outlined below.

-  It was explained that the initial ambiguity over the timeline was because the review kept information relating to the background and context of Child Q’s lived experiences to a minimum to protect Child Q’s identity and that of her family.

-  In terms of the overall timeline for the review, there had been delays due to an inability to access the police officers involved in the search due to the internal investigative processes of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the requirement not to undermine their investigation.

-  Child Q first came to the Independent CHSCP’s attention on 11 January 2021 and that the MPS and London Borough of Hackney were notified the following day. A Rapid Review report and the reasoning for the instigation of a SCR was submitted to the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (the national panel) on 15 January 2021.

-  The national panel wrote back questioning whether a SCR was necessary as it felt that the case was not notifiable and did not meet the criteria for a local child safeguarding practice review.

-  The Independent Chair expressed his disappointment that the national panel had not yet publicly recognised that it was wrong to do so, and assured those in attendance that he would continue to press the national panel for public recognition that their initial response was wrong and would not happen again.

-  It was explained that in the New Year fact checking was complete and final rounds of engagement were undertaken, including with the family, the reference group, the Metropolitan Police Service and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

-  The Child Q report made eight findings and fourteen recommendations for practice improvement.

-  The finding that racism (whether deliberately or not) was likely to have been an influencing factor in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Key statutory bodies have been requested to provide a written briefing in relation to Child Q SCR:

-  Initial response and actions taken;

-  Identify lessons learnt and identified priorities for change;

-  Those actions taken (or planned) to engage, involve and reassure the local community and other local stakeholders.

Speakers:

-  Metropolitan Police – report attached

-  London Borough of Hackney – report attached

-  The Mayor’s Office for Policing & Crime (MOPAC) – REPORT TO FOLLOW

(60 mins: 5 min summary presentation for each partner, 45 min Q & A)

7.1 The item would cover the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), London Borough of Hackney and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) to set out its response to the serious case review (SCR) in relation to:

- The initial response and actions taken

- Lessons learnt and identified priorities for the future

- Actions taken (or planned) to engage, involve and reassure the local community and other stakeholders

7.2 Attending for this item was:

-  Representing the MPS - Met HQ and Central East Borough Command Unit Borough Commander Marcus Barnett, Central East Borough Command Unit (Hackney and Tower Hamlets), Area Commander Paul Brogden, Frontline Policing Crime and Public Protection, Met HQ Detective Superintendent Adam Ghaboos, Central East Borough Command Unit (Hackney and Tower Hamlets) Chief Inspector Lucky Singh, Central East Borough Command Unit (Hackney and Tower Hamlets)

-  Representing London Borough of Hackney Mayor Philip Glanville, Councillor Susan Fajana Thomas, Cabinet Member for Community Safety & Regulatory Services, Councillor Anntoinette Bramble, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Education, Young People & Children’s Social Care, Mark Carroll, Chief Executive, Jacquie Burke, Group Director Children and Education, Annie Gammon, Director of Education, Sonia Khan, Head of Policy & Strategic Delivery.

-  Representing MOPAC, Kenny Bowie, Director of Strategy & MPS Oversight

7.3 The Chair invited the Borough Commander, Central East Borough Command Unit to give a short verbal presentation to compliment the reports received and included in the agenda pack. The main points from the presentation are outlined below.

-  The Borough Commander, Central East Borough Command Unit began by reiterating the MPS’ apologies for what had happened to Child Q and the effect it had had on her family and the wider community.

-  The MPS was committed to implementing the recommendations made by the SCR in full, learning from the incident and working with partners to respond to the criticisms and concerns that had been raised.

-  An action plan had been developed with local safeguarding partners and other stakeholders to implement the recommendations set out by the SCR.

-  The MPS had also begun work to review its processes in relation to strip searches and action had already been taken to ensure officers and staff had a refreshed understanding of the policy for conducting strip searches and advice for dealing with schools and ensuring that children are treated as children.

-  Community engagement work undertaken thus far included engagement and outreach work with children and young people, as well as the development of the Independent Advisory Group and Safer Neighbourhoods Board to facilitate dialogue around the recent events and tensions and to ensure its impacts were addressed.

-  A pilot scheme was currently underway whereby letters were sent to the parents of any child who had experienced a S.23 MDA stop and search but drugs were not located. It was felt this would help to ensure that the MPS was more transparent with parents in keeping them informed of events involving their child.

-  Another pilot scheme had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To establish what structures are in place to plan, coordinate and monitor the responses to recommendations and actions set out in:

-  The Serious Case Review;

-  Correspondence between Chief Executive of London Borough of Hackney and the Borough Commander;

-  The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) (when published).

To assess how partners will ensure that such accountability and monitoring structures are open, transparent, and accountable to local communities.

-  City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership

-  Metropolitan Police

-  London Borough of Hackney

-  MOPAC

(25 mins, 10 mins presentation, 15 mins Q & A)

8.1 The item would cover what structures were in place to plan, coordinate and monitor the responses to recommendations and actions set out in:

- The Serious Case Review (SCR)

- Correspondence between the Chief Executive of London Borough of Hackney and the Borough Commander, Central East Borough Command Unit

- The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) (once published)

8.2 The item would also cover how partners would ensure that such accountability and monitoring structures were open, transparent, and accountable to local communities.

8.3 Attending for this item was:

-  Jim Gamble, Independent Chair - City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership

-  Rory McCallum, Senior Professional Adviser, Safeguarding & Learning - London Borough of Hackney

-  Borough Commander Marcus Barnett, Central East Borough Command Unit (Hackney and Tower Hamlets)

-  Area Commander Paul Brogden, Frontline Policing Crime and Public Protection Met HQ

-  Detective Superintendent Adam Ghaboos, Central East Borough Command Unit (Hackney and Tower Hamlets)

-  Chief Inspector Lucky Singh, Central East Borough Command Unit (Hackney and Tower Hamlets)

-  Mayor Philip Glanville

-  Councillor Susan Fajana Thomas, Cabinet Member for Community Safety & Regulatory Services

-  Councillor Anntoinette Bramble, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Education, Young People & Children’s Social Care

-  Mark Carroll, Chief Executive,

-  Jacquie Burke, Group Director Children and Education

-  Annie Gammon, Director of Education

-  Sonia Khan, Head of Policy & Strategic Delivery

-  Kenny Bowie, Director of Strategy & MPS Oversight MOPAC)

8.4 In the interest of time, the Chair noted the reports received and included in the agenda pack and invited Commission Members to put any questions related to the information received to those guests in attendance.

Questions, Answers and Discussion

8.5 Hackney Education operated an approach in which senior officers were placed on the governing bodies of local maintained schools and some academies. A Commission Member asked what the purpose of such an approach was, and whether the approach would give rise to potential conflicts of interest. The accountability structures in place across academies in Hackney in regard to safeguarding were also queried. .

-  The Director of Education, London Borough of Hackney responded by explaining that having Council officers or Members sit on academy governing bodies or trust boards began when academies were first introduced in Hackney as a means of maintaining constructive dialogue whilst respecting the differing governance structures of academies.

-  All schools and academies in Hackney had their own safeguarding policy that they were ultimately accountable for. Hackney’s schools and academies were also required to identify safeguarding leads for both school staff and governors, and that the school or academy headteacher had overall responsibility for safeguarding.

-  Safeguarding training undertaken by schools and academies was also assessed at regular intervals through Ofsted visits and the City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership. She explained that regular audits are carried out by Hackney Education and, when particular issues or concerns were identified, safeguarding reviews would be carried out.

The Mayor of London Borough of Hackney was then invited by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

A summary of the key issues to arise from the scrutiny session including any agreed actions to take forward.

-  Cllr Soraya Adejare, Chair of Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission;

-  Cllr Margaret Gordon, Vice Chair of CYP Scrutiny Commission.

(10 min)

9.1 The Chair opened the item by explaining that the Scrutiny Commissions would reflect on the evidence submitted and write to the respective Cabinet Members and statutory organisations outlining recommendations for consideration.

9.2 The Chair highlighted that, following the publication of the Independent Office for Police Conduct report, the individual Scrutiny Commissions would review in more detail the specific actions, plans and work undertaken in respect of the Serious Case Review recommendations and medium to long term objectives to address public concerns around safeguarding policies and practices, organisational cultures, adultification, trust and confidence and community engagement.

9.3 The Chair proposed to hold a follow-up joint meeting to review the progress of monitoring and accountability for the recommendations, partnership working and the coordination of responses in March or April 2023.

Correspondence

(1)  Letter from Phillip Glanville, Mayor of Hackney to the Metropolitan Police (17/3/22)

(2)  Letter from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor at Metropolitan Police to Mayor of Hackney (31/3/22)

(3)  Letter from Mark Carroll, Chief Executive of London Borough of Hackney to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor at Metropolitan Police (1/4/22)

Links Background Reports

Keeping Children Safe in Education – Statutory Guidance for Schools (2021)

When to call the Police – guidance for schools and colleges (2020)

10.1 The background papers and reports were noted by members.

11.1 There was no other business and the meeting closed at 21.30.